Back

Socioeconomic inequality in SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 outcomes in UK Biobank over the first year of the pandemic: can inequalities be explained byselection bias?

Carter, A. R.; Clayton, G. L.; Borges, M. C.; Howe, L. D.; Hughes, R. A.; Davey Smith, G.; Lawlor, D. A.; Tilling, K.; Griffith, G. J.

2022-05-05 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.05.05.22274721 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundStructural barriers to testing may introduce selection bias in COVID-19 research. We explore whether changes to testing and lockdown restrictions introduce time-specific selection bias into analyses of socioeconomic position (SEP) and SARS-CoV-2 infection. MethodsUsing UK Biobank (N = 420 231; 55 % female; mean age = 56{middle dot}3 [SD=8{middle dot}01]) we estimated the association between SEP and i) being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested ii) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus testing negative and iii) testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested, at four distinct time-periods between March 2020 and March 2021. We explored potential selection bias by examining the same associations with hypothesised positive (ABO blood type) and negative (hair colour) control exposures. Finally, we conducted a hypothesis-free phenome-wide association study to investigate how individual characteristics associated with testing changed over time. FindingsThe association between low SEP and SARS-CoV-2 testing attenuated across time-periods. Compared to individuals with a degree, individuals who left school with GCSEs or less had an OR of 1{middle dot}05 (95% CI: 0{middle dot}95 to 1{middle dot}16) in March-May 2020 and 0{middle dot}98 (95% CI: 0{middle dot}94 to 1{middle dot}02) in January-March 2021. The magnitude of the association between low SEP and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection increased over the same time-period. For the same comparisons, the OR for testing positive increased from 1{middle dot}27 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}08 to 1{middle dot}50), to 1{middle dot}73 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}59 to 1{middle dot}87). We found little evidence of an association between both control exposures and all outcomes considered. Our phenome-wide analysis highlighted a broad range of individual traits were associated with testing, which were distinct across time-periods. InterpretationThe association between SEP (and indeed many individual traits) and SARS-CoV-2 testing changed over time, indicating time-specific selection pressures in COVID-19. However, positive, and negative control analyses suggest that changes in the magnitude of the association between SEP and SARS-CoV-2 infection over time were unlikely to be explained by selection bias and reflect true increases in socioeconomic inequalities. FundingUniversity of Bristol; UK Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; European Union Horizon 2020; Wellcome Trust and The Royal Society; National Institute of Health Research; UK Economic and Social Research Council

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.9%
2
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.9%
4
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.1%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.7%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
8
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 33%
2.5%
10
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
11
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.0%
12
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
13
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.6%
15
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.6%
16
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
17
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
18
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
19
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 39%
1.2%
21
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
22
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
25
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
27
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
28
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
29
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%